Mt. Guyot

[kaseri]

Either way I'm glad that I went over Guyot !

 

[MichaelJ]

Note that MJ's numbers for West Bond are 38 ft high and Bond 24 ft high (compared to the 25K scale USGS topo). This suggests that the absolute errors are greater than 21 ft and the relative errors change by 14 ft.
(MJ hasn't even told us which calibration method was used.)
The numbers may also be biased, depending on how MJ chose them.
MJ's numbers are good enough to suggest that the issue might be resolved with survey grade equipment.

Which is all I intended, since everyone seemed to be guessing pretty hard on how much dip was in the cols. My data might be full of absolute errors, but it's *relatively* accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion.

I calibrated manually once to GPS elevation in the Lincoln Woods parking lot, then throughout the trip allowed it to auto-calibrate the barometric altimeter to the GPS. On the summits I had excellent signal and several WAAS channels, and the unit was giving me a (horizontal) accuracy of 11', so my vertical accuracy, plus the 5' of error from the GPS being either up on my shoulder or down on the ground, explains the errors seen in the actual summit elevations.

I chose the points indicated by loading the GPX file (I have the GPS set to always write a GPX file to the data card) into Garmin Road Trip and flipping through the data points while observing on the map where they were. I simply picked out the maxima and minima, no interpolation was used.

In other words, it's statistically crap, but if you want an idea of how far down it is from Bond or West Bond to the Zealand/Guyot col, well, there ya go.

 

[skiguy]

In other words, it's statistically crap, but if you want an idea of how far down it is from Bond or West Bond to the Zealand/Guyot col, well, there ya go.

But the important thing is you had fun

 

[DougPaul]

I calibrated manually once to GPS elevation in the Lincoln Woods parking lot, then throughout the trip allowed it to auto-calibrate the barometric altimeter to the GPS. On the summits I had excellent signal and several WAAS channels, and the unit was giving me a (horizontal) accuracy of 11', so my vertical accuracy, plus the 5' of error from the GPS being either up on my shoulder or down on the ground, explains the errors seen in the actual summit elevations.

By the time you reached the ridge, the autocalibration should have pretty much erased the initial value set at the trailhead.

BTW, the EPE (Estimated Position Error) is flawed. It only takes some of the factors into account, so it is best viewed as a lower bound on the statistical error. The proper statistical error could be much larger. (Garmin does not tell you which version of EPE it displays. See http://www.nps.gov/gis/gps/WhatisEPE.html for three common definitions.) The spec sheet says "<10 meters 95% typical".

A quick rule of thumb is that the estimated vertical error (EVE) is typically 1.5 to 2 times the EPE for the GPS altitude. (However, the 60CSx does not record the GPS altitude--it records the barometric altitude.)

In other words, it's statistically crap, but if you want an idea of how far down it is from Bond or West Bond to the Zealand/Guyot col, well, there ya go.

You didn't make unjustifiable claims about your data, however others were attempting to draw unjustifiable conclusions from it.

Thanks for filling in the details of how you derived your data.

Doug

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I read somewhere (probably here on VFTT) that Guyot was left off the original list because it had *two* "questionable cols", whereas, for example, South Hancock had only one.

This is the reference you remember. Roy noted that the original Guyot exclusion was based on the lack of a 200' col on the 15' maps. Further, on the current 7.5' maps Guyot has two 200' cols, and the exclusion of Guyot continued.

Note, Guyot is on the Northeast 3K (770) list based on the two 200' cols.

 

[Raymond]

Note, Guyot is on the Northeast 3K (770) list based on the two 200' cols.

I was going to say that!

According to the 3K list I have, it's the highest Northeast mountain I haven't yet climbed.

 

[jniehof]

Further, on the current 7.5' maps Guyot has two 200' cols, and the exclusion of Guyot continued.

On my 1995 7.5' South Twin quad, Guyot is above the 4560' contour. The S. Twin col is 4360'-4400' (ie. above 4360' contour). The Bond col is also 4360'-4400'.

So it's not a clean 200' col. Pessimistically it's 160'; optimistically it's 240'. 4k estimate it's 180'-220' (since as far as I can tell, there's a stated 4k committee rule on estimating heights of peaks (half the contour interval), but not depths of cols.) I guess probabilistically there's a 50-50 chance of each being at least 200', so there's a 25% chance of Guyot qualifying. Despite what I've seen claimed in some places, to my knowledge optimistic prominence is not the 4k committee qualification. So in the absence of a clean col, I can understand sticking with the list as-is. (Not to mention the person who was upset over the "disrespect" of leaving Bondcliff and Galehead off the 4K scroll....)

Personally I'd be all for adopting a half-the-contour rule for cols, adding Guyot to the list, dropping S. Hancock (and I think Lincoln?) and generally going for as black-and-white as possible. But it would be a heck of an upset. In the meantime, they're all on the Trailwrights list, right?

I guess then we'd also be debating which summit of Guyot?

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

This has been an interesting read, and has answered my question.

If I understand correctly, Guyot was not included because of a marginal col that initial map readings indicated did not have the 200' vertical drop off. Later map readings and GPS readings seem to indicate that there is a possibility of slightly over a 200' drop off but its status remains the same.

I was told that Mt. Redington, ME once was not on the 4000 footer list because initial map readings indicated an altitude slightly lower than 4000' and that it was eventually given its rightful place on the list.

The whole Guyot question for me is not that big a deal one way or another especially since in doing a traverse you walk over it anyway, but I was curious. I would suppose that it might eventually be placed on the list. If that were the case, would it not affect the NE 100 highest list with Mt. Wilson VT being dropped off?

 

[dug]

Don't really care one way or the other personally, I just figured I'd chime in to say the sunrise and sunsets from Guyot are amazing.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... I would suppose that it might eventually be placed on the list. If that were the case, would it not affect the NE 100 highest list with Mt. Wilson VT being dropped off?

Ed - I would be very surprised if the 4K committee makes any changes to the list(s) in the near future. There were several revisions in the past 10 or 15 years, and the AMC has created new maps, largely based upon the GPS work of Larry Garland. But, I could be wrong ...

Edit - am in the same camp as dug - whether or not Guyot is included doesn't matter much to me. It's a nice peak, got a great spot for lunch on a traverse, but ... other than than - it's a rounded PUD on what is a delightful traverse.

 

[jniehof]

If that were the case, would it not affect the NE 100 highest list with Mt. Wilson VT being dropped off?

There'd have to be a lot of change to drop Wilson (#92), but promoting Guyot to 4K would drop NE Cannonball. (It would also make the HH-only list 32 long instead of 33). Here's the recent changes list, for some history. Gene's Routes to the Hundred Highest document has some history...North Horn (Bigelow) was dropped for inadequate col. (NW Hancock was dropped for inadequate col at the same time it "grew" above 4000'). I suspect the recent additions have been for finding deeper cols, as they're all a little ways up the list (i.e. they didn't hop onto the bottom of the list when a taller peak was disqualified.) Mahoosuc Arm and Middle Abraham, at 3765', were obviously "pushed off" when something else was added (so New England's gotten a little taller.)

I'd like to see a complete list of changes over the years, with reasons. It does highlight that, in some sense, the lists are all somewhat arbitrary--they certain seem to change faster than the landscape!

 

[nartreb]

I was told that Mt. Redington, ME once was not on the 4000 footer list because initial map readings indicated an altitude slightly lower than 4000' and that it was eventually given its rightful place on the list.

Yep. Spaulding too. It was pretty recent: 1998 IIRC; I'm sure there are folks on this board who got to complete their Maine 4ks twice: first the old list and then new list with those two new peaks.

Q. What are the recent changes to the lists?

A. As mentioned above, the lists are periodically revised to reflect changes in the survey information. We hope that the new quads are now accurate enough that further changes will be unnecessary. The following is a list of the most recent changes:

* For the WM 4000, the "D" peak of Wildcat replaces the "E" peak.
* For the NE 4000, two peaks in Maine have been elevated to 4000-footer status: Redington and Spaulding.
* For the NE 100 Highest, three peaks have been removed, and replaced by three new peaks.
Removed: Middle Abraham, Mahoosuc Arm and the North Peak of the Bigelow Horns, all in Maine.
Added: The Bulge, in NH, Cupsuptic Snow and the North Peak of Kennebago Divide, both in Maine.
Note that there are now two peaks in Maine named "Snow" on the 100 Highest list.

http://www.amc4000footer.org/faq.htm

 

[Mike P.]

Guyot & Clay/Reagan IMO are the two best "non" peaks with Little Haystack a close 3rd. I'd be shocked if the South Twin Guyot col qualifies. It doesn't feel like 200' feet on the trail & the trail doesn't stay on the top of the ridge either.

I'll have to disagree with Kevin on calling it a PUD. To be pointless, IMO it would have to be viewless.

 

[Quietman]

I agree that views trump list inclusion any day. And Guyot has them in spades! (pun intended)

 

[andrewb]

I have seen the clean prom listed at exactly 160 feet, but errors of at least a foot are almost guaranteed, so inclusion can be argued either way endlessly. Others have said that since many people hike it anyways (only if they are going long haul- though) it would be no biggie to add it. I think that's why it should not be added. If it offers nothing new to add it, what's the point?

But who cares about someone else's list in the first place? I despise the 4000 footer list, for starters it only has 48 peaks... like NH only has 48 worthwhile climbs (there are hundreds). Climb your own list... mine has every good climb in the state. You can't assign a number to "good", and those that try always fail as evidenced by the whole Guyot debacle.